Dear Editor,
I am for national unity/social cohesion at any place and any time but not anyhow. The idea of national unity in Guyana is good but the approach is bad. The principle is sound but the practice is subversive. First, I would like to see the new regime deliver to the Guyanese people what was promised in the 100 day manifesto before uniting with any other political parties. The new regime must demonstrate that it can stand on its legs so that when problems surface it will not collapse into a cocoon pointing fingers at others. So far, it has stumbled from one crisis to the other. To be fair, I would add another zero to the 100 days promise making it 1000 days before encouraging any unity. The new regime must show that it can stand on its own.
Second, it defies logic to have PM Moses Nagamootoo at the helm for the call for national unity. His adverse position toward the PPP opposition is well known. He might be capable but not cooperative. He will turn out to be more of a stickler than a settler. I am baffled as to why an African from the regime is not leading the unity process. Third, the approach to national unity should not be a political process. I would leave or hand it over to impartial academicians in sociology and history to assess and make recommendations for politicians to use in the move towards national unity/cohesion.
Fourth, the process of national unity/social cohesion should not be centred in Georgetown and other urban areas. These places have been the source of Guyana’s ethnic polarization and disunity. Look what has happened in the past when election results did not meet or match expectations. Look what goes on in Parliament. I would look at what really binds Africans and Indians in the villages during the non-election season. These villages seem to do well practising national unity and social cohesion as a way of life when politicians are not in their faces mobilizing them for votes.
Yours faithfully,
Lomarsh Roopnarine
